Agenda - 06-29-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

efforts to work out a regional solution for waste management with Durham County. The report goes on to say that these efforts were halted in 1991 with the dissolution of the Regional Task Force. The report next explains that the town of Chapel Hill in 1991 formed a Solid Waste Reduction Task Force with a stated goal of moving 'Towards Zero Garbage ". The report goes on to state that the LOG is committed to recycling and to the state mandated reduction of volume going into landfills. These state mandated goals are a reduction in volume by 25% in 1993 and 40% by 2001. Next the report explains that even after recycling and recovery of usable materials there will still be some materials which will have to go into a solid waste landfill. The report states that the selected site should be large enough to accommodate these leftover materials for the next "20 to 30 years ". At this point the report explains alternative methods of recycling and recovery of usable materials. The emphasis is on "high tech" solutions such as Refuse Derived Fuels (RDF) and Mixed Refuse Facilities (MRFs). Again, these are the goals of the LOG as presented to the public through Staff Reports and press releases. At this point let's compare these published goals to what has transpired at LSC meetings and as the result of LSC voting. The first question which comes to mind is "How large a site does Orange County really need ?" At the LSC meeting in February, Joyce Engineering (JE) was asked specifically how landfills are developed. JE explained that the landfill is developed in 10 acre cells. As one ten acre cell is filled, another cell is prepared to accept waste after the first cell is filled. This process is continued until the entire footprint area is used. (The "footprint" is that part of the land which is actually used for filling with garbage.) When asked how long a ten acre cell can be used, JE responded that based on today's usage a typical 10 acre cell will last between 1.5 to 3 years. The footprint area for sites 2 and I I are listed as between 300 to 450 acres per site in the February 19 1992 report released by Joyce Engineering. Through simple arithmetic it becomes evident that these sites are too large. Even the most conservative estimate shows that either of these sites at today's usage level could be active for 45 to 135 years. In other words 300 acres/ 10 = 30 ten acre cells. If each 10 acre cell is used for 1.5 years this indicates an active site for 45 years. If the footprint is 450 acres, this becomes 45 ten acre cells. If each cell is used for 3 years then this becomes 45 x 3 = 135 years. But remember these figures of 45 to 135 years are based on current usage. If the state mandated 40% reduction is calculated in, then the lifetime of the landfill gets expanded to 45/.6 = 75 yrs. and 135/.6 = 225 yrs. Therefore the tme projected lifetime of sites 2 and 11 are 75 to 225 years. This is much longer than the stated lifetime of 20 to 30 years. Even the most conservative estimates for sites 2 and I I are three to six times the official goals. Also it should be pointed out that the 450 acre footprint for site 1 I makes up only 27% of the total land which will be condemned if this site is selected. If the entire 1642 acres which make up site 1 I are included in these formulas, then the lifetime of this site extends beyond 800 years. This far exceeds the criteria set forth by the LOG in the March Staff Report. Why the discrepancy? A landfill site of this magnitude does not make any sense if you are talking about a landfill exclusively for the use of Orange County residents. Is the LOG really considering a landfill for Orange County only? Maybe not. Twice the LOG has coerced the LSC to add more sites to the active list when the LOG was not pleased by the outcome of voting at LSC meetings. At each of these occasions site I1 was added back to the active list without a clear majority of the LSC voting to do so. Information provided by Joyce Engineering concerning site 3 indicates that it includes 256 acres of which 158 are usable for a landfill. Using the above formulas, a conservative estimate for the lifetime of this site is 158 acres/10 = 15.8 cells x 1.5 yrs = 23.7 yrs. When the 40110 reduction is calculated, this becomes 23.7/.6 39.5 yrs. This site more than meets the requirements set forth by the LOG and the land is already paid for. The LOG publicly stated that site 3 was too small at the LSC meeting in March when the discussion turned to putting site 3 back on the active list. Too small for what? A regional landfill maybe. Site 3 is actually more than adequate for the next 20 to 30 years and with the state mandated reduction of 40°16 the lifetime of this site could be 40 to 80 years. 2